sherabpa wrote:...But there is no reason to accept two Karmapas. Take this guy Dawa Sangpo, an obvious charlatan, or any fake guru claiming to be Karmapa. They are not Karmapa, and no sensible person would say they are Karmapa.

Every fanatical supporter says exactly the same thing about the "other".

Similarly, though Thinley Thaye Dorje and Orgyen Thinley Dorje both have far more convincing grounds for saying they are Karmapa than Dawa Sangpo, one of them is not Karmapa.

therecanbeonlyone.jpg (26.22 KiB) Viewed 1462 times

It is not even right to pretend they are both Karmapas as an expedient to Buddhahood. As Shantideva says at 6.116-117,

Since they are both means of winning buddhahoodWe say that beings are the same as buddhasEven though they are not equalIn the boundless ocean of buddhas' qualities.Yet even if a tiny fraction of those qualitiesWere found contained in a certain being's heartThe three worlds made in offerings to themWould not be enough to honour them.

Why exactly do you say that there can't be two Karmapas? The famous Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo Rinpoche had at least five tulkus. There are numerous other lines of tulkus where there are more than one. Another example are the three lines of Pema Lingpa tulkus: Body, Speech, and Mind.I'd just like to know your reasoning for saying that, when it comes of the Karmapa, there can be only one valid tulku. Thanks.

Why exactly do you say that there can't be two Karmapas? The famous Jamyang Khyentse Wangpo Rinpoche had at least five tulkus. There are numerous other lines of tulkus where there are more than one. Another example are the three lines of Pema Lingpa tulkus: Body, Speech, and Mind.I'd just like to know your reasoning for saying that, when it comes of the Karmapa, there can be only one valid tulku. Thanks.

Also, Tulku Urgyen said there could be two Karmapa's, already from the beginning.

/magnus

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

That is only an assumption though, and we'd have to establish first what it really means to be the Karmapa, and then somehow know with certainty which one of them is that (if we take the position that one is and one isn't). We can of course just go with official recognition, let's say the one that His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Tai Situpa supports, and say he is - or we can say the other one is. But if we ignore recognitions, then what decides? And how do we know for sure?

The problem is that we take these things on faith, and we don't really know, unless we're very advanced bodhisattvas on the stages, and I'm not sure many of us are that. I for one am not. And as such, it's very hard for me to say "Yes this and that tulku is real, and this and that tulku is not." I just cannot say that.

Therefore, for me the things that matter is not name or recognition, but it is view and action, the knowledge and wisdom of a teacher, their qualifications. These things decide for me whether a teacher is good or not, and not a name.

So with regards to the 2x Karmapa issue, all I can say is does it matter (which is the true Karmapa, and whether there's one of them or two)? Maybe, if you want to look at traditional positions, history and all of these things. But what does the two teach? How are they as teachers? And so on. Because if both are very good Dharma teachers, then that's a very good thing. Look at that instead, and then perhaps the whole Karmapa issue isn't so important after all. At least I'd hope so, because who sits on what throne and who holds what hat has very little to do with the essence of Dharma.

Without getting into a big thing about it, that's not strictly true, sure previous Karmapas have been identified and enthroned by Shamarpas, but not all...Previous Situpas and Gyaltsabs have held this role both solely and jointly, so no matter what some would have us think, this has never been solely the Sharmarpas responsibility.

For example, the 16th Karmapa was identified and enthroned by Pema Wangchuk, the 11th Tai Situpa. Dudul Dorje, the 13th Karmapa, was recognized and Enthroned by Gyaltsab Rinpoche. Also other Lamas from other Kagyu sects have played a role in identifying Karmapas, such as Gyalwa Drukchen (in the case of Thekchok Dorje, the 14th Karmapa)

Yeah...that's what the current Shamarpa says...repeatedly, but historically Tai Situpa played as much central role. Just read the various Karmapa's biographies, and not just the ones on Wikipedia

I like you Greg, so let's agree to let this one rest.

Ps. I have received many teachings from the present Tai Situpa, so naturally I consider him one of my Gurus, he is also the Guru of my main teacher, Mingyur Rinpoche. He is an amazing, gentle and generous person. I have never once heard him say anything remotely negative about the whole Karmapa situation or anyone involved, I have however heard what I can only describe as disgusting accusations against Tai Situpa and his character.

I always found it a bit ironic that in a religion based on the idea of the non-existence of ego that people would argue about who "really" was the Karmapa. And I should add that matters most in any teacher is the qualities and not the title.

Jinzang wrote:I always found it a bit ironic that in a religion based on the idea of the non-existence of ego that people would argue about who "really" was the Karmapa. And I should add that matters most in any teacher is the qualities and not the title.

And I too agree....the qualities of Tai Situpa are what impressed me, the directness and clarity of his instructions, from the foundations to Mahamudra pith, he is patient, kind and personal, not his title or position....also the way he has reacted to his critics, shows for me, how genuine and humble he truly is.

To be honest, I genuinely don't care who thinks who is the Karmapa, I have met and received teachings and empowerments from the Karmapa, to me, it was profound.

I think we are extremely fortunate to have a free choice between two such highly trained teachers, and I really don't think anyone will go far wrong with either one. One day they may sit down and agree upon a single successor, and the whole thing will be over.

samdrup wrote:Yeah...that's what the current Shamarpa says...repeatedly, but historically Tai Situpa played as much central role. Just read the various Karmapa's biographies, and not just the ones on Wikipedia

I like you Greg, so let's agree to let this one rest.

I do not disagree with the central role historically played by the Situpa in the choice of the Karmapa, and I really have no opinion regarding the credence of either the Situpa or the Sharmapas choice of candidate; but even just historically speaking (ie opinions aside) we have to recognise that the first Situpa was not recognised until the time of the fifth Karmapa, whereas the first Sharmapa was recognised during the time of the third Karmapa.

But, of course, this is all just Tibetan theocratic power play and has about as much to do with enlightenment as who will be the next president of Tibet. The mandala each one of us belongs to has to do with our karma, nothing more. And ultimately, do you think anybody cares what we believe or not? Do you really believe that our opinion influences who will prevail? Possibly, but only to the degree that we financially support one side over the other. We are just pawns in this game.

The true Karmapa is the one who is the heir to the mindstream of all the previous Karmapas. Both of the two major candidates agree that there is only 1 Karmapa. For benefit of our own practice it's best to maintain pure perception and let the linage teachers sort of this out amongst themselves.